- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The writ petition was filed assailing the resolution of Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 11.5.2011 as well as the consequential Government notification dated 22.9.2011 which, inter alia, empowered the Courts of Additional District and Sessions Judge i.e. the Sub-Divisional Head Quarters to have requisite power of entertaining the filing of all the appeals, applications except those are coming under Section 438 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 or those applications which are required to be filed before District Judge under any other statute. Although the notification published in the official gazette was also with regard to matrimonial suits but there was no challenge to the said issue, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in opining that there is no need to decide the same. The legal issue raised before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the resolution of the Administrative Committee of the High Court and consequential notification contending that there is violation of provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, particularly, the second proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 9 of the Code as applicable in the State of West Bengal. According to them, it is not permissible to file criminal matters before any other Court than the Sessions judge. As the code mandates that only Seasons Judge presided over a Court of Sessions alone is obliged to receive such criminal matters and not any Additional Session's Judge.
(2.) The learned Judge ultimately opined that consequence of the first proviso to Section 9(3) of the Code if applicable in the State of West Bengal then there cannot be exclusion of one particular Sub-Division in isolation and ultimately opined that if Additional Sessions Judge is the head of the criminal Courts hierarchy at the sub-division why the entire process pertaining to appeals, applications etc. should not be brought before the said Court? especially when the larger public policy contained in the notification clearly mandates that the object of notification was to promote or bring justice closure to the door steps of a litigant within the parameter of the territorial jurisdiction as recognized in the criminal jurisprudence. He also opined that there is an element of centralization and concentration of work in the District Head Quarters which should not be the criterion to challenge the notification in question.
(3.) Accordingly, dismissed the writ petition as void of merits. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya argued for the appellant Bar Association and learned Advocate General argued for State of West Bengal. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellant assailed the notification primarily on the ground that the amendment brought by the State so far as Section 9(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as introduced by Code of Criminal Procedure (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988 (West Bengal Act XXIV of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1988) had not coming to force since it was not notified in terms of Section 1(2) of the sad Amending Act and, therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the said provision in upholding the notification in question. He alternatively contends that even if such Amendment had come into force, it did not empower the Additional Sessions Judges in the Sub- Divisions to entertain appeals and revisional applications under Sections 374(3) and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, the power to transfer and revisional proceeding is vested in the Sessions Judge under Section 400 of Cr.P.C., therefore, there cannot be usurption of the same by the impugned notification. He stressed upon the observations made by learned Single Judge as to the alleged motive or intention of the appellant /writ petitioners in preferring the writ petition as uncalled for and unwarranted and sought to be expunged.;